Featured Title:
Cave Of Forgotten Dreams on DVD |
 |
| Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-art of Britain |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 110 guests and 2 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Forum: Stones Forum
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
Respond to: What is Archaeology for?
|
| Review your Reply |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2012-12-18 20:30
Do you think there will be more forthcoming that will be of interest? I've been thinking about this one quite a bit because I've working up how to approach the remaining associated stuff.
The public head-line of the scans seems to have been that a few more axe carvings exist than had been previously thought. It didn't get a huge response from the media.
Doubling the information is great, but we're already interested. I doubt this will interest the public because nothing has been solved by the exercise. Perhaps there will be more if they find anything at Rhosyfelin/Castell Mawr/Prescelli etc? Bluestonehenge might get a bit of interest, though it's a bit like Woodhenge in that there's nothing tangible.
Unless maybe I've messed up and missed something important?
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-12-18 17:56
I suppose that in a sense, with no results, the answer would be: Yes.
But in the case of SH, the results have been a watershed. Each individual finding might have been viewed as an interesting footnote, but assembled together, create nearly double the previous information.
Then we factor in acedemically-funded programs such as the Laser Scans and it's a great bonus that will keep you and I busy for years.
I take pains to emphasize that SH & Environs are probably the exception when compared to other worthy sites, but Gov't funding for these would also be stingy.
On the surface it's all bright and shiny and presented as a kind of lottery, if you will. Underneath, it's just as shadowy and internecine as a Le Carre spy novel.
When the commercial return on investment is no longer viable, we'll see that funding dry up and fall back on Government agencies and University programs.
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-12-18 14:54
Thanks Neil
I agree there are commercial reasons, but would not these funding programmes have been negotiated before austerity set in? I'm struggling to see what commercial benefit there will be over the next few years: If the good times have yielded nothing much of interest, why would investment from the private sector be forthcoming over the next few years?
For example; Stonehenge and its environs: The Bluestonehenge discoveries are interesting but hardly a "killer app". The best scenario for any privately funded research is to produce something that captures the public imagination (to increase market segment for the funders). This then promotes competition amongst funders to sponsor further ventures (very useful in times of austerity).
It seems to me that there is little or no funding allocated to fulfilling the blue sky interests of the commercial bodies who sponsor the events. So with little in the way of "killer app" results, commercial funding will probably dry up rather than increase.
Is there an error in this logic?
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-12-17 18:46
I offer 2 schools of thought.
1.) The money saved from funding Archeology Programs could better serve the Community at large during times of austerity. i.e. school lunches, et.al.
2.) In reality, money saved from dormant programs is rarely earmarked for Public Use, going instead to the vaguely encompassing 'Administrative Costs' of providing school lunches.
(Wouldn't it be a different world if Schools got every penny they need, while the Air Force had to throw a Bake Sale to pay for a Stealth Bomber.)
Therefore we see a marked upswing from the private sector to underwrite archeological programs - the most visible being the recent broad funding by Google & Nat Geo for much of the work of the SH Riverside Project, and several others.
This is a double-edged sword.
On one hand, the work gets done with a virtually open checkbook.
But the resulting interpretations are Subject to Approval by the Commercial end of the providers. We have to wait even longer for the results.
Additionally, long-lasting economic downturns - such as this catastrophe we're in now - create Donation Fatigue, and the purse-strings get pinched yet again.
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-12-17 14:44
I had concluded that it helps provide support to the body of history. I thought this would be the case, but thought it worth asking the question.
The austerity cuts are likely to have a heavy impact on archaeological funding, which seems to have been showing signs of stress for a while:
Funding: Archaeology (from a quick google scan, there seems to be plenty more)
There is an argument that it would be better if major archaeological and related discoveries were to occur after the time of austerity has passed, thus allowing more appropriate resources to be made available to them. Is there any reason to dismiss this argument?
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-12-17 14:46 ]
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 817
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-12-15 08:39
I know this will sound a dumb question, but what purpose does archaeology serve? I found a definition below, but it doesn't answer the question in the same way that, say, the engineering professions have defined what their purpose to society is:
Archaeology
Comparison: Engineering
For example, knowledge of our history is important to help prevent errors being repeated. In which case perhaps archaeology supports the work of historians? History is easy to justify in its own right (In order to make the best choices for the future, you need to understand the past).
Alternatively, it might be an activity which undertakes investigations which interest people but which have no definable benefit as such to society.
Or does it have an independent benefit to humanity in its own right?
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-12-15 08:41 ]
| |
|
Main News